Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree 100% with what you have posted above. However, when one becomes a transgender, it is done in stages.....which may or may not include having surgery to remove the male's penis. If the male has not gotten to the stage of removing his penis or, like Jenner, opts not to ever remove his penis, there are some people who are still in favor of them being able to shower in the girls shower and it would be up to the girls to either deal with it or leave. Here is such a statement:
You're thinking transsexual, not transgender. The term transgender is an umbrella term which includes transsexuals, but the two terms are not interchangeable.
That's what's kind of crazy about this whole thing. I believe when people are arguing for transgender bathroom rights, they are really thinking about transsexuals, not the transgender population as a whole. Because that term can cover a lot of variety of people, not all who dress in drag and/or been going through the transition.
There was an interesting comment in another forum's thread about this subject where a twin, unfortunately, had a twin sister to pass away. We all know that twins can have very, very close relationships with each other. Because of this unfortunate situation, the twin that was left felt asexual. She feels she can never have a close relationship with anyone, no matter the gender. And as I've read from those who consider themselves transgender, they consider asexuality a sub genre of transgenderism.
I just point this out because the arguments always seem to go back to transsexuals - those who you really wouldn't be able to tell unless you saw them naked. Most people on either side of the argument wouldn't give those people a second thought, unless, of course, it was in a locker room shower, then there might be a triple take moment, but otherwise, probably a rather benign situation. Where as, someone who obviously is a particular gender according to their physicality, but yet, doesn't identify with either gender. How would you legislate that? You couldn't say, "Well, those people would need to use the restroom of their biological sex"...well, not for what some of you are arguing for, because these people are also under the transgender umbrella, and that would negate the whole "gender identity" argument.
There's also a whole other can of worms that could be opened (already has in another forum and it wouldn't be appropriate for this forum), and that's the idea that a lot of gays and lesbians don't even care for transgenders latching themselves on to the LGB bus. But that's neither here nor there.
You like to toss around sex offender stats. Do you know why you can get that information? It goes back to Megan's Law. The original Megan's Law was written in NJ. Why was it written? A little girl named Megan was lured into her neighbor's house, sexually assaulted, then killed. Her parents had no idea that the nice neighbor had a history of sexual assaults of females who he KNEW.
Sexual assaults are most prevalent between people who know each other. Date rape falls under that. Rapists on the street, & in house break-ins are the outliers, as well as exhibitionists who get a cheap thrill by flashing genitalia.
And most car accidents happen within a mile of home. That doesn't mean that seatbelts are only required within that radius.
You're thinking transsexual, not transgender. The term transgender is an umbrella term which includes transsexuals, but the two terms are not interchangeable.
That's what's kind of crazy about this whole thing. I believe when people are arguing for transgender bathroom rights, they are really thinking about transsexuals, not the transgender population as a whole. Because that term can cover a lot of variety of people, not all who dress in drag and/or been going through the transition.
There was an interesting comment in another forum's thread about this subject where a twin, unfortunately, had a twin sister to pass away. We all know that twins can have very, very close relationships with each other. Because of this unfortunate situation, the twin that was left felt asexual. She feels she can never have a close relationship with anyone, no matter the gender. And as I've read from those who consider themselves transgender, they consider asexuality a sub genre of transgenderism.
I just point this out because the arguments always seem to go back to transsexuals - those who you really wouldn't be able to tell unless you saw them naked. Most people on either side of the argument wouldn't give those people a second thought, unless, of course, it was in a locker room shower, then there might be a triple take moment, but otherwise, probably a rather benign situation. Where as, someone who obviously is a particular gender according to their physicality, but yet, doesn't identify with either gender. How would you legislate that? You couldn't say, "Well, those people would need to use the restroom of their biological sex"...well, not for what some of you are arguing for, because these people are also under the transgender umbrella, and that would negate the whole "gender identity" argument.
There's also a whole other can of worms that could be opened (already has in another forum and it wouldn't be appropriate for this forum), and that's the idea that a lot of gays and lesbians don't even care for transgenders latching themselves on to the LGB bus. But that's neither here nor there.
For this particular discussion, I am referring to transgender and how there is a transitioning process, making it impossible to say just because one identifies as a female, they can use the female shower. If they have truly FULLY transitioned, then sure, their place is in the girls shower.
Charlotte should have let sleeping dogs lie. But their agenda is only getting started. Amazing how they talk about discrimination but ignore many laws on the books that discriminate against white, males and even Asian people. No mention of quotas and affirmative action. Whether its College admissions in Cally or government contracts having to abide by quotas. Nothing but more hypocrisy. Just bullies.
For this particular discussion, I am referring to transgender and how there is a transitioning process, making it impossible to say just because one identifies as a female, they can use the female shower. If they have truly FULLY transitioned, then sure, their place is in the girls shower.
What I found interesting in that Cosmopolitan article is that at least one of those M-t-F transsexuals, was still interested in women, just I guess she was interested in having lesbian sex with women. Honestly, it blows my mind. But, it also makes me think; a man who doesn't go through the transition, but identifies as a woman, dresses as a woman, but is still interested in women sexually, would be free to use the women's restroom or locker room had the Charlotte ordinance been passed. I could only imagine how weird that can be.
What I found interesting in that Cosmopolitan article is that at least one of those M-t-F transsexuals, was still interested in women, just I guess she was interested in having lesbian sex with women. Honestly, it blows my mind. But, it also makes me think; a man who doesn't go through the transition, but identifies as a woman, dresses as a woman, but is still interested in women sexually, would be free to use the women's restroom or locker room had the Charlotte ordinance been passed. I could only imagine how weird that can be.
Exactly. The majority in NC agree with HB2 and are not yielding to the bullying.
What I found interesting in that Cosmopolitan article is that at least one of those M-t-F transsexuals, was still interested in women, just I guess she was interested in having lesbian sex with women. Honestly, it blows my mind. But, it also makes me think; a man who doesn't go through the transition, but identifies as a woman, dresses as a woman, but is still interested in women sexually, would be free to use the women's restroom or locker room had the Charlotte ordinance been passed. I could only imagine how weird that can be.
EXACTLY! Particularly in the shower.
And there in lies the issue.......at least for the majority of people.
.............While we appreciate your input and interest from so far away, you can't possibly have very good information about CLT's ordinance. And it's evident in all your criticism of our LOCAL ORDINANCE, desired by OUR COMMUNITY, to enrich and uplift OUR CITY.
Whether I read the Charlotte ordinance from here in Florida or my wife reads it when she is in North Carolina, which is her employer's state, it reads the same......which is as I and others have been saying.
Either way, it ended up having a profound effect on the direction of NC as a whole, which is very disheartening to me.......as I am sure it is to millions of others. No Ordinance, No HB2, No problem. If only they could go back in time and leave well enough alone, where men showered with men and women showered with women.
Whether I read the Charlotte ordinance from here in Florida or my wife reads it when she is in North Carolina, which is her employer's state, it reads the same......which is as I and others have been saying.
Either way, it ended up having a profound effect on the direction of NC as a whole, which is very disheartening to me.......as I am sure it is to millions of others. No Ordinance, No HB2, No problem. If only they could go back in time and leave well enough alone, where men showered with men and women showered with women.
I agree. It was a very small minority in Charlotte that was intent on stirring all this up. Totally intentional I feel. Their plan was to antagonize the legislature and then bully their way to victory.
Whether I read the Charlotte ordinance from here in Florida or my wife reads it when she is in North Carolina, which is her employer's state, it reads the same......which is as I and others have been saying.
Either way, it ended up having a profound effect on the direction of NC as a whole, which is very disheartening to me.......as I am sure it is to millions of others. No Ordinance, No HB2, No problem. If only they could go back in time and leave well enough alone, where men showered with men and women showered with women.
HB2 had a profound impact on the State. Put the blame for HB2 where it lies. With the NC General Assembly. If they truly were only worried about "gender identity", and bathroom privileges, then excise that part only. By wholesale destruction of LGBT rights the STATE is wrong. But it's a moot point, because NC's overreach is illegal, and will be struck down when the Feds come back around to slap some sense into the regressive south.
Do you blame the rape victim for wearing a short skirt too? You seem to think that CLT's ordinance created a free pass for sexual assaults. It didn't. It allowed law-abiding citizens to use the facilities of the agenda they identify with. That's it. All your innuendo and slippery slope arguments prove only how little you are considering this case on its true and verifiable merits. And it seems like the answer to that is "not at all".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
